Law Center Search Results

: On September 17, 2026, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the 2nd Circuit urging the court to reconsider its decision to allow questionable expert evidence into a complex medical causation dispute. In Rutledge v. Walgreens, a class of plaintiffs sued manufacturers and retailers of acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol), relying on unreliable scientific evidence that prenatal exposure to the medicine may cause Autism Spectrum Disorder or ADHD. While the trial court correctly excluded this evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the 2nd Circuit reversed. It issued a problematic decision misconstruing the imperative gatekeeping function trial courts exercise, suggesting they should relax their standards of admissibility. Our amicus brief emphasizes that the Federal Rules of Evidence were amended just three years ago to clarify the requirement that trial courts take a hard look at the reliability of expert testimony before allowing it to reach a jury. All manufacturers have an interest in keeping the trial bar in check and preventing junk science from entering the courtroom—especially when it comes to products that have undergone extensive scientific review as part of the government’s regulatory regime to manage potential risks.